development. This development should be vigorously expanded and expedited and, once the development in a given area has been completed, every possible effort should be made toward supporting the implementation process.

PRESENT ACT AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

No attempt will be made here to present in statistical detail the accomplishments under section 1009, title X, of the current act. Such documentation is abundantly available and has been or will be presented to the committee by official governmental agencies. The enthusiastic support of the State education agencies attests to the value of this program. Although it represents a relatively small financial portion of the total National Defense Education Act, its impact has been far out of proportion to the Federal funds expended. It has presented few, if any, administrative problems. It has been administered with commonsense and discretion, with a minimum of reporting and a maximum effort directed toward cooperative achievement of the objectives of the program. In fact, a very important outcome of this program thus far has been a climate of teamwork and cooperation between the State education agencies and Office of Education personnel. Technical and consultative assistance from the Office of Education staff members has been invaluable in such areas as program evaluation, automatic data-processing systems and procedures, accounting techniques, data analysis and interpretation, and methods for dissemination of educational information.

The Council of Chief State School Officers endorses and supports the major changes proposed by S. 1726 for section 1009, title X, of the National Defense Education Act:

1. The program should be made permanent

The compelling national interest in adequate, comparable, and timely information about education is well established. The States share in this interest-they share it because they are a part of the Nation and they also share it because they need such information for sound decisionmaking at the State and local levels. However, the development of an adeqaute inventory of sound educational information must depend upon the extension and maintenance of cooperative relationships which have been developed thus far among the local, State, and Federal levels of government. To realize the ultimate achievement of the program objectives, this cooperative relationship must be established on a permanent basis. The demands of the Congress of the United States and other agencies of the Federal Government for educational information-both the volume of the information requested and the efforts required to provide the information in comparable form with nationally developed standards-have added to the financial burdens of the States. The principle of fairness, therefore, demands that the Federal Government share this burden. State education agencies are willing and able to comply with reasonable requests for furnishing information to the Federal Government but they must be assured of the continuing support of the Federal Government in order to make the longrange plans and commitments necessary to meeting these needs.

2. Federal matching funds should be increased, with provision for a base allotment to each State, plus an additional allotment which recognizes variation in statistical volume among the several States

The present annual matching allotment of $50,000 per State is obviously inadequate to provide a permanent intercommunicating system of educational information such as proposed in this bill. More and more local school districts are utilizing machine systems for the recording and processing of data at the source; these systems range from the standard punchcard equipment to sophisticated computer operations in some of the larger cities. This development, in turn, requires trained personnel and expensive equipment at the State level in order to realize the potentialities for rapid transmittal of data in machine usable form.

The total cost of an adequate statistical services program in any given State would depend somewhat upon the volume of educational statistics generated in that State. The school age population is a logical measure of that volume. The base allotment of $25,000 in matching funds would help to support the overhead of a minimal operation in each State, regardless of population. The additional matching allotment of 10 cents per child of school age would provide the financial assistance necessary to handle the statistical volume created by the State's population.

3. The emphasis should be changed from support of "new, added, or expanded programs” only to both improvement and sharing in the support of an ongoing program

Just as this program should become permanent, rather than temporary in nature, the emphasis should be placed upon sharing the support for the total statistical services program. It is the total program to which we must look for the quality and quantity of information needed at all governmental levels. Improvement still is, and always will be, both necessary and desirable, but it cannot be said that an item of information needed at the national level results only from improvements in a State statistical services program; its source lies in the total program and the proposal to support the program in its totality is commendable.

Senator MORSE. I want to say, as usual you have presented a very scholarly statement to us, and it will be very helpful. I am glad that you have spent time in this statement pointing out the inseparability of the interrelationship among these three bills that the Congress is going to have to consider. I, for a long time, have felt that what we do with this bill really is determined in no small measure by what we do with the 1021 bill.

Senator Yarborough?

Senator YARBOROUGH. I do not believe I have any questions at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CASE. No questions.

Senator MORSE. Again, thank you very much.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I am impressed by the recommendation that the council in Santa Fe recommended that English be included along with foreign languages. I agree with that.

Mr. FULLER. We considered this at very great length. We recommended that title III of the National Defense Education Act be broadened. We recommended the inclusion of English, history, geography, economics, and government, because the maps, charts, globes, and supplies of library books and other printed material that could be used in those fields would help to balance the widespread criticism of the imbalance of title III.

Senator MORSE. You should not have made that statement, because all you do is tempt me, and I am not going to yield to temptationyou tempt me to reinforce you. I only want to, in one quick, broad brush-stroke way, say that I am glad that you suggested those other subject matters. In fact, you mentioned history and let me say if there is anything that American young people need it is some knowledge of American history. I am not so sure that that is not about as important in the defense of this Republic as some of these other courses that we think they ought to be taught in order to strengthen the defense of America under the National Defense Education Act. But I will quit. You have made the points. I just say "Amen." I thank you very much indeed.

Our next witness will be Mr. George Hecht, chairman of the American Parents Committee, Inc.

Mr. Hecht, we are very happy to have you with us. Proceed, within the time limitation, in your own way.

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE J. HECHT, CHAIRMAN, THE AMERICAN PARENTS COMMITTEE, INC., AND PUBLISHER, PARENTS MAGAZINE

Mr. HECHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I am George J. Hecht, chairman, American Parents Committee and publisher of Parents magazine.

I appreciate the opportunity to express to your committee and to the Congress my strong personal support and the support of the American Parents Committee for S. 1726 which will, if enacted, extend and improve the National Defense Education Act. Most of the members of this committee know that we worked very hard in 1958 to get this legislation through the Congress, particularly through the House of Representatives. Some of my proudest possessions are six letters framed on my office wall from the top legislative executives of the National Education Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the American Personnel & Guidance Association, as well as from Senator Lister Hill and Representative Carl Elliott, which express appreciation of the leading role that my organization and I were able to play in getting this bill enacted.

The accomplishments under the NDEA, during the short time it has been in operation, have fulfilled our hopes and expectations. The program lifted the level of special areas of education during a period when educational systems in general have been swamped by the great burden of increased enrollments and insufficient finances. The fact that 200,000 students have been able to finish college because college loans were available would almost in itself justify passage of the act. Added to that accomplishment the program has produced several thousand scholars with doctoral degrees able to fill the great need for professors in the Nation's colleges. The reports indicate that much progress has been made in counseling, testing, and guidance to help the youth of the Nation find the best field in which to develop their potentialities. Progress has been made in teaching languages and in the other special areas. Detailed facts and figures on all of these accomplishments are already a part of your record.

Our purpose is to endorse heartily the President's proposals and to tell this committee that we will work hard for the passage of the bill before you. We are happy that the bill would make permanent the program providing for student loans, that providing for graduate fellowships and those providing for language development and for the improvement of educational statistics. Frankly, from a layman's point of view, we wonder why all of the National Defense Education Act would not be renewed on a permanent basis. However, we join the President in hoping that this Congress will pass legislation providing general Federal aid to undergird the Nation's entire system of elementary and secondary education. In that light, we can understand and respect the President's wishes that some part of the National Defense Education Act be renewed for only a 3-year term; and at the end of that term, be reevaluated in relation to the general Fedcral aid program which he hopes will be passed.

We oppose the new provision in title III of the bill to include education in physical fitness as one of the purposes for which Federal funds may be used. While we recognize the need for increased funds to im

prove the health of the boys and girls of the United States, we do not believe provision for such funds should be included in the National Defense Education Act. The purpose of this act is to provide additional support for those areas of education in greatest need and those particularly essential for the Nation's defense, such as science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages. However, to make this money available for footballs, baseball diamonds, and other physical education equipment, we believe would be an unwise diversion of funds so badly needed in other more vital educational areas. We have heard that it has been suggested that the renewal of the National Defense Education Act be merged with other pending education bills. We would like to register our opposition to that strategy because we fear that many needs of education will not get sufficient attention in a combined bill and that the final legislation will be far too narrow and insufficient.

Mr. HECHT. And Mr. Chairman, may I also put into the record a fine editorial from the New York Times that I read in this morning's edition on the subject of the National Defense Education Act and I will not take time to read it.

Senator MORSE. The editorial will be included in the record. (The editorial referred to follows:)

[From the New York Times, May 12, 1961]

FEDERAL AID TO THE SCHOOLS

The urgent necessity that Congress approve pending legislation for direct Federal aid to the public schools was reiterated in these columns yesterday. There is no domestic question of greater importance; and a bill along the general lines of the one approved yesterday by a 12-to-2 vote of the Senate Labor Committee ought (with some changes) be enacted into law. It makes substantial Federal funds available to the States for school construction and teachers' salaries, or both; and it is not encumbered by bitterly controversial provisions concerning segregation or Federal aid to private and parochial schools.

Quite distinct from the proposals for direct Federal grants to the schools for salaries and construction is another area of Federal aid to education that is also being currently considered by the Congress. This involves broadening the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which has been providing some help to institutions of higher learning and also has been affording emergency aid to the schools for specific purposes, notably the study of science, mathematics, and foreign languages. It has authorized grants to the public schools and loans to nonpublic ones.

The most serious, recurrent criticism of this law is that, because it was a direct response to the first Soviet sputnik, it is too narrowly conceived. Science, mathematics, and foreign languages had long been dangerously neglected and could stand an emergency blood transfusion; but the long-range need is a strong and balanced curriculum rather than a specialized crash program. We urge extension of the National Defense Education Act beyond the immediately critical subjects, especially with a view toward improving the teaching of English, history, geography, and economics; and we would limit the program to public schools.

In higher education, the National Defense Education Act is mainly important because of its program of student loans. This program is sound, educationally and financially. It underlines the personal investment value of higher education. It should be continued.

Unfortunately, this successful scheme has been marred from its beginning by a thoroughly objectional clause: a provision requiring a disclaimer of "belief" in ideas considered subversive. This requirement has kept some of the Nation's leading universities, including Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, outside the program in protest. It is discriminatory, ineffective, and strengthens the hands of those who warn against the dangers of Government control through Federal aid. It should be removed from the act.

While the National Defense Education Act already provides graduate fellowships, it fails to offer undergraduate scholarships. President Kennedy proposes to offer such grants-eventually 50,000 annually. This plan deserves support. In fact, since the proposals aim at distribution of the funds through the States and on the basis of statewide competition, they may shame into action those States which have lagged in setting up their own State scholarship programs.

Mr. HECHT. In view of what was said about physical education before, I would like to say that I am all for physical fitness for our boys and girls, but if we want to provide for physical fitness we would do better to give increased funds for annual or periodic health examinations to correct the physical defects of children.

I sponsored and helped draft, some years ago, a school health bill. Many of our young people are growing up with physical defects that are not discovered by their family physicians or parents.

If there were school health examinations when a child entered school and then periodically during their school years and the defects corrected, we would do much more, I think, toward the health of our schoolchildren. I think the health of our schoolchildren should be provided for in other legislation and not in this bill.

I am afraid that if we put a provision for physical education in this bill many school superintendents will defer to local pressure such as the chamber of commerce and other local pressure, to put money into stadiums and swimming pools and gymnasiums, and that it will channel off money that is so badly needed for educational instruction in important fields like science, mathematics, and history.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Hecht, I want to say that I remember very very well your testimony earlier this year on S. 1021, and your testimony this morning is a great help to us.

I want the record to show that I think you deserve a commendation for the pioneering work that you have done through your periodic work and through your other work in this whole field of arousing the American people to a better understanding and appreciation of the educational needs of this country.

I want to thank you, as chairman of this subcommittee. You and I will not engage in any debate in regard to this matter, including the physical fitness program in this bill, and I do not think it is necessary for me to register my dissent from your point of view because I think our difference in the matter is a matter of definition and not program at all.

It is not contemplated that the physical education program should be used for baseball diamonds and football stadiums and so-called contents, but, rather, as the President has pointed out, and I am well aware of it, the President considers this matter of paying attention to physical fitness in this country one of the most serious defense needs of the country.

What we do want is a kind of physical education program to cause the young of this country to learn how to take care of their bodies and keep their bodies fit, because we can develop all of the other education processes to our heart's content, but unless you are building up a healthy, physically fit population you are going to also fall behind in the defense needs of the country.

I think it is a matter of putting the safeguards and the checks in the legislation so that we can avoid the dangers that you feel of local school boards yielding to chamber of commerce pressure.